|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On January 13 2017 02:58 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2017 02:56 oBlade wrote:On January 13 2017 02:52 Gorsameth wrote:On January 13 2017 02:48 oBlade wrote:On January 12 2017 23:15 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 12 2017 08:27 oBlade wrote:On January 12 2017 08:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 12 2017 07:51 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:fivethirtyeight seems to have a good summary of the problem. One of the most interesting moments in Donald Trump’s news conference Wednesday came when Trump wasn’t even on the podium: Sheri Dillon, one of Trump’s lawyers, spent several minutes explaining why Trump couldn’t realistically put his assets in a blind trust, as many ethics watchdogs have demanded.
Dillon’s argument was complex, and she may very well be right. But that doesn’t mean concerns about Trump’s conflicts of interest are invalid.
The words “blind trust” have been thrown around a lot in recent weeks, but it’s worth explaining what that phrase really means. True blind trusts aim to shield politicians or other public figures from conflicts of interest (real or perceived) by ensuring that they have no control over their assets, or even know what those assets are.
A typical case works like this: Hypothetical Sen. Jane Johnson owns $2 million in stock in the tech company where she used to be an executive and an additional $3 million in stocks, bonds and other investments. She transfers her assets into a blind trust, overseen by an independent trustee. That trustee then sells the existing holdings (either all at once or over time) so that when Johnson has to vote on a bill affecting the tech industry — or even affecting her old company — she doesn’t know whether that vote could affect her personal finances.
But Trump’s situation is far from typical. Most of his wealth isn’t held in stocks or bonds that can be easily sold; it’s in a company that he owns and operates, it’s in buildings and golf courses around the world, and it’s in his personal brand (and the licensing deals based on it). Simply transferring his assets to a blind trust wouldn’t accomplish much as long as the company remained in business. “President Trump can’t un-know he owns Trump Tower,” Dillon said Wednesday.
To put his assets in a true blind trust, Trump would need to liquidate his assets by selling the company and its holdings, stripping his name off his hotels and resorts, and canceling his licensing deals. Dillon on Wednesday argued that such a plan would be impractical if not impossible. Some of her reasons boiled down to one: It would cost Trump a lot of money. She argued, for example, that if Trump sold his assets without retaining the rights to his brand, he would “greatly diminish the value of the assets and create a fire sale.” In other words, she said, the assets would be worth far less without Trump’s name on them.
But there are practical hurdles to a true blind trust even if you aren’t worried about Trump’s personal net worth. The process of selling his assets would take time, perhaps years. And because the sales would undoubtedly make headlines, Trump could easily keep track of what he still owned and what he didn’t, meaning that even then the trust wouldn’t be truly “blind.” (It would also create the strange situation of having a business named after the president of the United States but not controlled by him.)
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/no-one-has-a-good-plan-to-get-rid-of-trumps-conflicts-including-trump/ That being said, another really simple solution to prevent conflict of interest is simply not to elect a billionaire or anyone obscenely rich, and... Oh wait. I'm jocking but I'm serious. The idea that having made a shitton of money qualifies you for office is typically american and bat shit crazy. It's not limited to Trump, but i always cringe when i hear people complain about the porosity between politics and bug money. Hey, what about not voting for millionaires and even less for billionaires if you don't want your country to be a ploutocracy? Your US bashing aside, where there should be a difference is that wealth per se isn't a bad thing if you drop the revolutionary undertones. What we don't want is people using public office to enrich themselves and entangling policy with their own greed. There's an argument to be made that people who are independently comfortable are if anything in a position to be less susceptible to that. Well what you want is someone who works for the public good and in the interest of everyone. I don't think it's too marxist to say that if your lifegoal has been to make an obscene amount of money for yourself, it's unlikely your vision of a good society is based on the common good. Also one of the great challenges of our time is inequalities. Not sure billionaires are really good at tackling those. In general, i believe that the super rich should be kept as far as possible away from politics, simply because their interest and the interest of the majority (working class and middle class) don't align at all. The closest to Trump i can think of in recent time is Berlusconi. On top of being one of the most embarassing time in Italian history, his time as PM has been one giant conflict of interest. I think you're fundamentally misunderstanding the world by conflating wealth with greed and opulence. Controlling capital is a form of power to run the things that let our world turn. Just because someone has a smaller net worth, it doesn't mean they're proportionally less consumed by avarice, it just means they haven't gotten to the same level, by whatever combination of different priorities, skill, and chance. To wit, people aren't Cincinnatus simply because they're only upper middle class. I get if you don't like Berlusconi or even Trump, but the outlier net worth of one guy who managed to get the highest office doesn't extrapolate broadly. I don't get the sense you've looked through wider politics (I haven't either) because off the top of my head, it would be easy for a lot of especially career politicians, the people who are supposed to be competent experts that we want to perpetuate, to be millionaires. A million dollars isn't that much. Mainly this is chastising success. The problem with Trump is not that he is rich. Its that is not willing to follow basic standards to limit conflicts of interest. "He has to much stuff to do so" is not an excuse. He knew what he was getting into when he decided to run. That wasn't the subject but I'll take you up on it, you think he should have started liquidating his global multibillion dollar empire in June 2015? Or even earlier? Probably, yes. If he was indeed serious about winning the presidency he should have done the research to assess what was necessary under current good practice and law, rather than babbling about blind trusts at debates and not looking into the matter at all. If he truly wanted to MAGA a few hundred million of lost profits out of his billions seems a small price to pay, yeah? Ultimately, though, the problem is that he is someone who has spent his whole life believing rules are for other people and then can be changed at the drop of a hat. This is a tremendously poisonous attitude for anyone with power to have-even YuGiOh figured that out.
That would have been so satisfying for everyone who got emotionally attached to the election, a DJT who lost and had no company to go back to. Just so he could measure up to something that's not a legal standard, but rather defined by whatever's in our heads.
|
On January 13 2017 03:10 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2017 02:55 farvacola wrote:On January 13 2017 02:48 zlefin wrote:On January 13 2017 02:46 farvacola wrote:
So the Senate laid the groundwork for a practically complete, filibuster-proof repeal of Obamacare in the House.....through voting that took place during the dead of night. Must have been a popular move, ehh?
what makes it the dead of night? I hadn't followed the daily happenings. the house sometimes works until very late. We're now in the midst of the "vote-a-rama" that takes place in the Senate every year as they attempt to play catch up. How the votes are scheduled and at what time is usually a good indicator of controversy (much of the congressional action on the CRA of '64 took place at night, for example). Accordingly, that the repeal of Obamacare, something many Republicans have claimed is wildly popular, was handled by the Senate around 1 AM suggests that all is not right with the repeal Obamacare movement. Congressional republicans are a bunch of pussies. I'm just glad that they got the vote through.
Are you? What exactly do you have against poor people having access to healthcare that they can actually afford?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
I saw an ad a few days ago for Obamacare - "register now to avoid ~$700 uninsured penalty."
Sounds like a great way to help people.
|
Worth mentioning that Rand Paul was the only republican to vote against the ACA repeal due to no replacement plan and the cost of the repeal.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 13 2017 03:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2017 02:54 LegalLord wrote:
Yes, those utterly despicable populists abandoned all reason to victimize poor, poor Hillary Clinton, a delectably electable candidate who should have never lost because she had the only policy that made sense - the people were just too liberal or deplorable to see her truly brilliant vision. I was not arguing for poor-poor Hillary, just restating the events that transpired. She got 3 million more votes than her opponent, so it's clear what the choice was for the American people. Where she lost was in strategic voting, unable to get word-of-mouth traction because social media was inundated by memes instead of discourse--an axis she was weak on. As such, costs to get door-knockers and precinct walkers was much higher for her than normal elections, forcing her team to be more deliberate in their GOTV strat.
She lost according to the rules of the game as it was played. Trump won the votes where he needed to win them, and he had a pretty solid electoral victory, so I don't see the win as illegitimate in that sense.
Memes weren't what won the election though - it was a deeply rooted dissatisfaction with Hillary and everything she represents, and in the swing states that dissatisfaction just happened to be sufficient to get people to suck it up and vote for a candidate they didn't really like who claimed to virulently stand against those things.
|
On January 13 2017 03:13 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2017 03:10 xDaunt wrote:On January 13 2017 02:55 farvacola wrote:On January 13 2017 02:48 zlefin wrote:On January 13 2017 02:46 farvacola wrote:
So the Senate laid the groundwork for a practically complete, filibuster-proof repeal of Obamacare in the House.....through voting that took place during the dead of night. Must have been a popular move, ehh?
what makes it the dead of night? I hadn't followed the daily happenings. the house sometimes works until very late. We're now in the midst of the "vote-a-rama" that takes place in the Senate every year as they attempt to play catch up. How the votes are scheduled and at what time is usually a good indicator of controversy (much of the congressional action on the CRA of '64 took place at night, for example). Accordingly, that the repeal of Obamacare, something many Republicans have claimed is wildly popular, was handled by the Senate around 1 AM suggests that all is not right with the repeal Obamacare movement. Congressional republicans are a bunch of pussies. I'm just glad that they got the vote through. Are you? What exactly do you have against poor people having access to healthcare that they can actually afford?
Yeah, you may want to take time to read up on my numerous statements regarding what I think about health care before writing patently presumptive, stupid, and uninformed shit like this.
|
Memes weren't "what won the election," but white nationalists have way better memes than centrist Democrats, that much is clear.
|
On January 13 2017 03:21 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2017 03:13 hunts wrote:On January 13 2017 03:10 xDaunt wrote:On January 13 2017 02:55 farvacola wrote:On January 13 2017 02:48 zlefin wrote:On January 13 2017 02:46 farvacola wrote:
So the Senate laid the groundwork for a practically complete, filibuster-proof repeal of Obamacare in the House.....through voting that took place during the dead of night. Must have been a popular move, ehh?
what makes it the dead of night? I hadn't followed the daily happenings. the house sometimes works until very late. We're now in the midst of the "vote-a-rama" that takes place in the Senate every year as they attempt to play catch up. How the votes are scheduled and at what time is usually a good indicator of controversy (much of the congressional action on the CRA of '64 took place at night, for example). Accordingly, that the repeal of Obamacare, something many Republicans have claimed is wildly popular, was handled by the Senate around 1 AM suggests that all is not right with the repeal Obamacare movement. Congressional republicans are a bunch of pussies. I'm just glad that they got the vote through. Are you? What exactly do you have against poor people having access to healthcare that they can actually afford? Yeah, you may want to take time to read up on my numerous statements regarding what I think about health care before writing patently presumptive, stupid, and uninformed shit like this.
I have, and you have not shown any good or valid arguments, so I'm just curious what your problem with poor people having affordable health care they can afford is. We both, as well as every politician knows if obamacare is repealed there will not be any replacement for a very long time, and if there ever is it will not be until democrats take over the senate and house, because the republicans will either fight every inch of the way to not have a viable replacement, or will make a replacement that's just another horrible privatized healthcare system in which once again poor people and those with pre existing illnesses will be given the shaft.
|
On January 13 2017 03:26 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2017 03:21 xDaunt wrote:On January 13 2017 03:13 hunts wrote:On January 13 2017 03:10 xDaunt wrote:On January 13 2017 02:55 farvacola wrote:On January 13 2017 02:48 zlefin wrote:On January 13 2017 02:46 farvacola wrote:
So the Senate laid the groundwork for a practically complete, filibuster-proof repeal of Obamacare in the House.....through voting that took place during the dead of night. Must have been a popular move, ehh?
what makes it the dead of night? I hadn't followed the daily happenings. the house sometimes works until very late. We're now in the midst of the "vote-a-rama" that takes place in the Senate every year as they attempt to play catch up. How the votes are scheduled and at what time is usually a good indicator of controversy (much of the congressional action on the CRA of '64 took place at night, for example). Accordingly, that the repeal of Obamacare, something many Republicans have claimed is wildly popular, was handled by the Senate around 1 AM suggests that all is not right with the repeal Obamacare movement. Congressional republicans are a bunch of pussies. I'm just glad that they got the vote through. Are you? What exactly do you have against poor people having access to healthcare that they can actually afford? Yeah, you may want to take time to read up on my numerous statements regarding what I think about health care before writing patently presumptive, stupid, and uninformed shit like this. I have, and you have not shown any good or valid arguments, so I'm just curious what your problem with poor people having affordable health care they can afford is. We both, as well as every politician knows if obamacare is repealed there will not be any replacement for a very long time, and if there ever is it will not be until democrats take over the senate and house, because the republicans will either fight every inch of the way to not have a viable replacement, or will make a replacement that's just another horrible privatized healthcare system in which once again poor people and those with pre existing illnesses will be given the shaft.
You very clearly have no fucking clue what I think because I have been very clear for years that I support a public option. Do your homework before you launch presumptuous bullshit attacks.
EDIT: My god, and even if I wasn't for a public option, favoring the repeal of Obamacare does not warrant a "why do you hate poor people" attack.
|
On January 13 2017 03:20 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2017 03:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 13 2017 02:54 LegalLord wrote:
Yes, those utterly despicable populists abandoned all reason to victimize poor, poor Hillary Clinton, a delectably electable candidate who should have never lost because she had the only policy that made sense - the people were just too liberal or deplorable to see her truly brilliant vision. I was not arguing for poor-poor Hillary, just restating the events that transpired. She got 3 million more votes than her opponent, so it's clear what the choice was for the American people. Where she lost was in strategic voting, unable to get word-of-mouth traction because social media was inundated by memes instead of discourse--an axis she was weak on. As such, costs to get door-knockers and precinct walkers was much higher for her than normal elections, forcing her team to be more deliberate in their GOTV strat. She lost according to the rules of the game as it was played. Trump won the votes where he needed to win them, and he had a pretty solid electoral victory, so I don't see the win as illegitimate in that sense. Memes weren't what won the election though - it was a deeply rooted dissatisfaction with Hillary and everything she represents, and in the swing states that dissatisfaction just happened to be sufficient to get people to suck it up and vote for a candidate they didn't really like who claimed to virulently stand against those things.
I have not argued for the win being legitimate or illegitimate, I am arguing that despite Hillary having more votes, she was unable to take advantage of doing well on non-social media mediums (debates, policy, media, polls, etc...) but word of mouth popularity usually determines your GOTV costs (volunteers vs paid staff) which meant that "safe states" like Michigan and Pennsylvania were underfunded due to poll predictions telling the Hillary team to shift expenditures to other states.
You don't have a 3 million popular vote lead because people are dissatisfied with you. You don't get the 2nd most votes in American history because people are dissatisfied with you. You lose despite the popular vote when you mismanage the street presence of your campaign in the last month.
|
On January 13 2017 03:28 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2017 03:26 hunts wrote:On January 13 2017 03:21 xDaunt wrote:On January 13 2017 03:13 hunts wrote:On January 13 2017 03:10 xDaunt wrote:On January 13 2017 02:55 farvacola wrote:On January 13 2017 02:48 zlefin wrote:On January 13 2017 02:46 farvacola wrote:
So the Senate laid the groundwork for a practically complete, filibuster-proof repeal of Obamacare in the House.....through voting that took place during the dead of night. Must have been a popular move, ehh?
what makes it the dead of night? I hadn't followed the daily happenings. the house sometimes works until very late. We're now in the midst of the "vote-a-rama" that takes place in the Senate every year as they attempt to play catch up. How the votes are scheduled and at what time is usually a good indicator of controversy (much of the congressional action on the CRA of '64 took place at night, for example). Accordingly, that the repeal of Obamacare, something many Republicans have claimed is wildly popular, was handled by the Senate around 1 AM suggests that all is not right with the repeal Obamacare movement. Congressional republicans are a bunch of pussies. I'm just glad that they got the vote through. Are you? What exactly do you have against poor people having access to healthcare that they can actually afford? Yeah, you may want to take time to read up on my numerous statements regarding what I think about health care before writing patently presumptive, stupid, and uninformed shit like this. I have, and you have not shown any good or valid arguments, so I'm just curious what your problem with poor people having affordable health care they can afford is. We both, as well as every politician knows if obamacare is repealed there will not be any replacement for a very long time, and if there ever is it will not be until democrats take over the senate and house, because the republicans will either fight every inch of the way to not have a viable replacement, or will make a replacement that's just another horrible privatized healthcare system in which once again poor people and those with pre existing illnesses will be given the shaft. You very clearly have no fucking clue what I think because I have been very clear for years that I support a public option. Do your homework before you launch presumptuous bullshit attacks.
Sure, however you supporting the public option is irrelevant. You, me, the politicians, your grandma, and even my cat all know that there is no replacement for obamacare, and that the republicans which hold majority have no plans for a replacement and especially not for a public healthcare system. Therefore you are happy about them getting rid of a system which allows the poor to have access to healthcare that they would not otherwise have, with no plans to replace it anytime soon. That is what you support. The fact that you would like a public healthcare system is irrelevant because that will not happen until the republicans are kicked out of office, and even then might not.
edit: I am also for the public option, and ACA is clearly not the best possible system we could have, or even close to it. The problem is that it is much better than what we had before, and simply getting rid of it without having an alternative is just reckless and will screw over many people. I cannot think of another way to describe the ACA repeal with no alternative other than spiteful evil and selfish.
|
On January 13 2017 02:56 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2017 02:52 Gorsameth wrote:On January 13 2017 02:48 oBlade wrote:On January 12 2017 23:15 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 12 2017 08:27 oBlade wrote:On January 12 2017 08:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 12 2017 07:51 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:fivethirtyeight seems to have a good summary of the problem. One of the most interesting moments in Donald Trump’s news conference Wednesday came when Trump wasn’t even on the podium: Sheri Dillon, one of Trump’s lawyers, spent several minutes explaining why Trump couldn’t realistically put his assets in a blind trust, as many ethics watchdogs have demanded.
Dillon’s argument was complex, and she may very well be right. But that doesn’t mean concerns about Trump’s conflicts of interest are invalid.
The words “blind trust” have been thrown around a lot in recent weeks, but it’s worth explaining what that phrase really means. True blind trusts aim to shield politicians or other public figures from conflicts of interest (real or perceived) by ensuring that they have no control over their assets, or even know what those assets are.
A typical case works like this: Hypothetical Sen. Jane Johnson owns $2 million in stock in the tech company where she used to be an executive and an additional $3 million in stocks, bonds and other investments. She transfers her assets into a blind trust, overseen by an independent trustee. That trustee then sells the existing holdings (either all at once or over time) so that when Johnson has to vote on a bill affecting the tech industry — or even affecting her old company — she doesn’t know whether that vote could affect her personal finances.
But Trump’s situation is far from typical. Most of his wealth isn’t held in stocks or bonds that can be easily sold; it’s in a company that he owns and operates, it’s in buildings and golf courses around the world, and it’s in his personal brand (and the licensing deals based on it). Simply transferring his assets to a blind trust wouldn’t accomplish much as long as the company remained in business. “President Trump can’t un-know he owns Trump Tower,” Dillon said Wednesday.
To put his assets in a true blind trust, Trump would need to liquidate his assets by selling the company and its holdings, stripping his name off his hotels and resorts, and canceling his licensing deals. Dillon on Wednesday argued that such a plan would be impractical if not impossible. Some of her reasons boiled down to one: It would cost Trump a lot of money. She argued, for example, that if Trump sold his assets without retaining the rights to his brand, he would “greatly diminish the value of the assets and create a fire sale.” In other words, she said, the assets would be worth far less without Trump’s name on them.
But there are practical hurdles to a true blind trust even if you aren’t worried about Trump’s personal net worth. The process of selling his assets would take time, perhaps years. And because the sales would undoubtedly make headlines, Trump could easily keep track of what he still owned and what he didn’t, meaning that even then the trust wouldn’t be truly “blind.” (It would also create the strange situation of having a business named after the president of the United States but not controlled by him.)
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/no-one-has-a-good-plan-to-get-rid-of-trumps-conflicts-including-trump/ That being said, another really simple solution to prevent conflict of interest is simply not to elect a billionaire or anyone obscenely rich, and... Oh wait. I'm jocking but I'm serious. The idea that having made a shitton of money qualifies you for office is typically american and bat shit crazy. It's not limited to Trump, but i always cringe when i hear people complain about the porosity between politics and bug money. Hey, what about not voting for millionaires and even less for billionaires if you don't want your country to be a ploutocracy? Your US bashing aside, where there should be a difference is that wealth per se isn't a bad thing if you drop the revolutionary undertones. What we don't want is people using public office to enrich themselves and entangling policy with their own greed. There's an argument to be made that people who are independently comfortable are if anything in a position to be less susceptible to that. Well what you want is someone who works for the public good and in the interest of everyone. I don't think it's too marxist to say that if your lifegoal has been to make an obscene amount of money for yourself, it's unlikely your vision of a good society is based on the common good. Also one of the great challenges of our time is inequalities. Not sure billionaires are really good at tackling those. In general, i believe that the super rich should be kept as far as possible away from politics, simply because their interest and the interest of the majority (working class and middle class) don't align at all. The closest to Trump i can think of in recent time is Berlusconi. On top of being one of the most embarassing time in Italian history, his time as PM has been one giant conflict of interest. I think you're fundamentally misunderstanding the world by conflating wealth with greed and opulence. Controlling capital is a form of power to run the things that let our world turn. Just because someone has a smaller net worth, it doesn't mean they're proportionally less consumed by avarice, it just means they haven't gotten to the same level, by whatever combination of different priorities, skill, and chance. To wit, people aren't Cincinnatus simply because they're only upper middle class. I get if you don't like Berlusconi or even Trump, but the outlier net worth of one guy who managed to get the highest office doesn't extrapolate broadly. I don't get the sense you've looked through wider politics (I haven't either) because off the top of my head, it would be easy for a lot of especially career politicians, the people who are supposed to be competent experts that we want to perpetuate, to be millionaires. A million dollars isn't that much. Mainly this is chastising success. The problem with Trump is not that he is rich. Its that is not willing to follow basic standards to limit conflicts of interest. "He has to much stuff to do so" is not an excuse. He knew what he was getting into when he decided to run. That wasn't the subject but I'll take you up on it, you think he should have started liquidating his global multibillion dollar empire in June 2015? Or even earlier?
No I don't think he needed to do anything until he won, I didn't say that anywhere.
But now that he has won he needs to take proper steps and not the half arsed shit he is doing.
|
On January 13 2017 03:11 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2017 02:58 TheTenthDoc wrote:On January 13 2017 02:56 oBlade wrote:On January 13 2017 02:52 Gorsameth wrote:On January 13 2017 02:48 oBlade wrote:On January 12 2017 23:15 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 12 2017 08:27 oBlade wrote:On January 12 2017 08:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 12 2017 07:51 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:fivethirtyeight seems to have a good summary of the problem. One of the most interesting moments in Donald Trump’s news conference Wednesday came when Trump wasn’t even on the podium: Sheri Dillon, one of Trump’s lawyers, spent several minutes explaining why Trump couldn’t realistically put his assets in a blind trust, as many ethics watchdogs have demanded.
Dillon’s argument was complex, and she may very well be right. But that doesn’t mean concerns about Trump’s conflicts of interest are invalid.
The words “blind trust” have been thrown around a lot in recent weeks, but it’s worth explaining what that phrase really means. True blind trusts aim to shield politicians or other public figures from conflicts of interest (real or perceived) by ensuring that they have no control over their assets, or even know what those assets are.
A typical case works like this: Hypothetical Sen. Jane Johnson owns $2 million in stock in the tech company where she used to be an executive and an additional $3 million in stocks, bonds and other investments. She transfers her assets into a blind trust, overseen by an independent trustee. That trustee then sells the existing holdings (either all at once or over time) so that when Johnson has to vote on a bill affecting the tech industry — or even affecting her old company — she doesn’t know whether that vote could affect her personal finances.
But Trump’s situation is far from typical. Most of his wealth isn’t held in stocks or bonds that can be easily sold; it’s in a company that he owns and operates, it’s in buildings and golf courses around the world, and it’s in his personal brand (and the licensing deals based on it). Simply transferring his assets to a blind trust wouldn’t accomplish much as long as the company remained in business. “President Trump can’t un-know he owns Trump Tower,” Dillon said Wednesday.
To put his assets in a true blind trust, Trump would need to liquidate his assets by selling the company and its holdings, stripping his name off his hotels and resorts, and canceling his licensing deals. Dillon on Wednesday argued that such a plan would be impractical if not impossible. Some of her reasons boiled down to one: It would cost Trump a lot of money. She argued, for example, that if Trump sold his assets without retaining the rights to his brand, he would “greatly diminish the value of the assets and create a fire sale.” In other words, she said, the assets would be worth far less without Trump’s name on them.
But there are practical hurdles to a true blind trust even if you aren’t worried about Trump’s personal net worth. The process of selling his assets would take time, perhaps years. And because the sales would undoubtedly make headlines, Trump could easily keep track of what he still owned and what he didn’t, meaning that even then the trust wouldn’t be truly “blind.” (It would also create the strange situation of having a business named after the president of the United States but not controlled by him.)
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/no-one-has-a-good-plan-to-get-rid-of-trumps-conflicts-including-trump/ That being said, another really simple solution to prevent conflict of interest is simply not to elect a billionaire or anyone obscenely rich, and... Oh wait. I'm jocking but I'm serious. The idea that having made a shitton of money qualifies you for office is typically american and bat shit crazy. It's not limited to Trump, but i always cringe when i hear people complain about the porosity between politics and bug money. Hey, what about not voting for millionaires and even less for billionaires if you don't want your country to be a ploutocracy? Your US bashing aside, where there should be a difference is that wealth per se isn't a bad thing if you drop the revolutionary undertones. What we don't want is people using public office to enrich themselves and entangling policy with their own greed. There's an argument to be made that people who are independently comfortable are if anything in a position to be less susceptible to that. Well what you want is someone who works for the public good and in the interest of everyone. I don't think it's too marxist to say that if your lifegoal has been to make an obscene amount of money for yourself, it's unlikely your vision of a good society is based on the common good. Also one of the great challenges of our time is inequalities. Not sure billionaires are really good at tackling those. In general, i believe that the super rich should be kept as far as possible away from politics, simply because their interest and the interest of the majority (working class and middle class) don't align at all. The closest to Trump i can think of in recent time is Berlusconi. On top of being one of the most embarassing time in Italian history, his time as PM has been one giant conflict of interest. I think you're fundamentally misunderstanding the world by conflating wealth with greed and opulence. Controlling capital is a form of power to run the things that let our world turn. Just because someone has a smaller net worth, it doesn't mean they're proportionally less consumed by avarice, it just means they haven't gotten to the same level, by whatever combination of different priorities, skill, and chance. To wit, people aren't Cincinnatus simply because they're only upper middle class. I get if you don't like Berlusconi or even Trump, but the outlier net worth of one guy who managed to get the highest office doesn't extrapolate broadly. I don't get the sense you've looked through wider politics (I haven't either) because off the top of my head, it would be easy for a lot of especially career politicians, the people who are supposed to be competent experts that we want to perpetuate, to be millionaires. A million dollars isn't that much. Mainly this is chastising success. The problem with Trump is not that he is rich. Its that is not willing to follow basic standards to limit conflicts of interest. "He has to much stuff to do so" is not an excuse. He knew what he was getting into when he decided to run. That wasn't the subject but I'll take you up on it, you think he should have started liquidating his global multibillion dollar empire in June 2015? Or even earlier? Probably, yes. If he was indeed serious about winning the presidency he should have done the research to assess what was necessary under current good practice and law, rather than babbling about blind trusts at debates and not looking into the matter at all. If he truly wanted to MAGA a few hundred million of lost profits out of his billions seems a small price to pay, yeah? Ultimately, though, the problem is that he is someone who has spent his whole life believing rules are for other people and then can be changed at the drop of a hat. This is a tremendously poisonous attitude for anyone with power to have-even YuGiOh figured that out. That would have been so satisfying for everyone who got emotionally attached to the election, a DJT who lost and had no company to go back to. Just so he could measure up to something that's not a legal standard, but rather defined by whatever's in our heads.
If only he'd mentioned that months ago during debates instead of telling us he was going to create a blind trust...
At least you seem to agree he's a shortsighted liar who didn't read up on what's proper in "our heads" because he doesn't think rules apply to him.
|
On January 13 2017 03:37 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2017 03:28 xDaunt wrote:On January 13 2017 03:26 hunts wrote:On January 13 2017 03:21 xDaunt wrote:On January 13 2017 03:13 hunts wrote:On January 13 2017 03:10 xDaunt wrote:On January 13 2017 02:55 farvacola wrote:On January 13 2017 02:48 zlefin wrote:On January 13 2017 02:46 farvacola wrote:
So the Senate laid the groundwork for a practically complete, filibuster-proof repeal of Obamacare in the House.....through voting that took place during the dead of night. Must have been a popular move, ehh?
what makes it the dead of night? I hadn't followed the daily happenings. the house sometimes works until very late. We're now in the midst of the "vote-a-rama" that takes place in the Senate every year as they attempt to play catch up. How the votes are scheduled and at what time is usually a good indicator of controversy (much of the congressional action on the CRA of '64 took place at night, for example). Accordingly, that the repeal of Obamacare, something many Republicans have claimed is wildly popular, was handled by the Senate around 1 AM suggests that all is not right with the repeal Obamacare movement. Congressional republicans are a bunch of pussies. I'm just glad that they got the vote through. Are you? What exactly do you have against poor people having access to healthcare that they can actually afford? Yeah, you may want to take time to read up on my numerous statements regarding what I think about health care before writing patently presumptive, stupid, and uninformed shit like this. I have, and you have not shown any good or valid arguments, so I'm just curious what your problem with poor people having affordable health care they can afford is. We both, as well as every politician knows if obamacare is repealed there will not be any replacement for a very long time, and if there ever is it will not be until democrats take over the senate and house, because the republicans will either fight every inch of the way to not have a viable replacement, or will make a replacement that's just another horrible privatized healthcare system in which once again poor people and those with pre existing illnesses will be given the shaft. You very clearly have no fucking clue what I think because I have been very clear for years that I support a public option. Do your homework before you launch presumptuous bullshit attacks. Sure, however you supporting the public option is irrelevant. You, me, the politicians, your grandma, and even my cat all know that there is no replacement for obamacare, and that the republicans which hold majority have no plans for a replacement and especially not for a public healthcare system. Therefore you are happy about them getting rid of a system which allows the poor to have access to healthcare that they would not otherwise have, with no plans to replace it anytime soon. That is what you support. The fact that you would like a public healthcare system is irrelevant because that will not happen until the republicans are kicked out of office, and even then might not.
I'm guessing that you didn't watch Trump's press conference yesterday where he said that there will be a replacement put in immediately after Obamacare is phased out?
|
On January 13 2017 03:43 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2017 03:37 hunts wrote:On January 13 2017 03:28 xDaunt wrote:On January 13 2017 03:26 hunts wrote:On January 13 2017 03:21 xDaunt wrote:On January 13 2017 03:13 hunts wrote:On January 13 2017 03:10 xDaunt wrote:On January 13 2017 02:55 farvacola wrote:On January 13 2017 02:48 zlefin wrote:On January 13 2017 02:46 farvacola wrote:
So the Senate laid the groundwork for a practically complete, filibuster-proof repeal of Obamacare in the House.....through voting that took place during the dead of night. Must have been a popular move, ehh?
what makes it the dead of night? I hadn't followed the daily happenings. the house sometimes works until very late. We're now in the midst of the "vote-a-rama" that takes place in the Senate every year as they attempt to play catch up. How the votes are scheduled and at what time is usually a good indicator of controversy (much of the congressional action on the CRA of '64 took place at night, for example). Accordingly, that the repeal of Obamacare, something many Republicans have claimed is wildly popular, was handled by the Senate around 1 AM suggests that all is not right with the repeal Obamacare movement. Congressional republicans are a bunch of pussies. I'm just glad that they got the vote through. Are you? What exactly do you have against poor people having access to healthcare that they can actually afford? Yeah, you may want to take time to read up on my numerous statements regarding what I think about health care before writing patently presumptive, stupid, and uninformed shit like this. I have, and you have not shown any good or valid arguments, so I'm just curious what your problem with poor people having affordable health care they can afford is. We both, as well as every politician knows if obamacare is repealed there will not be any replacement for a very long time, and if there ever is it will not be until democrats take over the senate and house, because the republicans will either fight every inch of the way to not have a viable replacement, or will make a replacement that's just another horrible privatized healthcare system in which once again poor people and those with pre existing illnesses will be given the shaft. You very clearly have no fucking clue what I think because I have been very clear for years that I support a public option. Do your homework before you launch presumptuous bullshit attacks. Sure, however you supporting the public option is irrelevant. You, me, the politicians, your grandma, and even my cat all know that there is no replacement for obamacare, and that the republicans which hold majority have no plans for a replacement and especially not for a public healthcare system. Therefore you are happy about them getting rid of a system which allows the poor to have access to healthcare that they would not otherwise have, with no plans to replace it anytime soon. That is what you support. The fact that you would like a public healthcare system is irrelevant because that will not happen until the republicans are kicked out of office, and even then might not. I'm guessing that you didn't watch Trump's press conference yesterday where he said that there will be a replacement put in immediately after Obamacare is phased out?
I did not, but if I had my stance would not change. I do not trust a single word of trumps or the republicans given their track records. So I will not change my mind on this until it happens, and then only if the replacement is actually superior to the ACA. I highly highly doubt that their replacement will be better, I have a very strong suspicion it will be significantly worse and privatized. If however they do have a new system in place as soon as the ACA leaves, and the new system is actually better (not just better for the rich mind you) then I will admit I was wrong on this. But I'm honestly not holding my breath for trump or the republicans to do any good with this, and I fully expect them to botch it up and leave a horrible mess for the next democratic president to have to clean up.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 13 2017 03:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2017 03:20 LegalLord wrote:On January 13 2017 03:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 13 2017 02:54 LegalLord wrote:
Yes, those utterly despicable populists abandoned all reason to victimize poor, poor Hillary Clinton, a delectably electable candidate who should have never lost because she had the only policy that made sense - the people were just too liberal or deplorable to see her truly brilliant vision. I was not arguing for poor-poor Hillary, just restating the events that transpired. She got 3 million more votes than her opponent, so it's clear what the choice was for the American people. Where she lost was in strategic voting, unable to get word-of-mouth traction because social media was inundated by memes instead of discourse--an axis she was weak on. As such, costs to get door-knockers and precinct walkers was much higher for her than normal elections, forcing her team to be more deliberate in their GOTV strat. She lost according to the rules of the game as it was played. Trump won the votes where he needed to win them, and he had a pretty solid electoral victory, so I don't see the win as illegitimate in that sense. Memes weren't what won the election though - it was a deeply rooted dissatisfaction with Hillary and everything she represents, and in the swing states that dissatisfaction just happened to be sufficient to get people to suck it up and vote for a candidate they didn't really like who claimed to virulently stand against those things. I have not argued for the win being legitimate or illegitimate, I am arguing that despite Hillary having more votes, she was unable to take advantage of doing well on non-social media mediums (debates, policy, media, polls, etc...) but word of mouth popularity usually determines your GOTV costs (volunteers vs paid staff) which meant that "safe states" like Michigan and Pennsylvania were underfunded due to poll predictions telling the Hillary team to shift expenditures to other states. You don't have a 3 million popular vote lead because people are dissatisfied with you. You don't get the 2nd most votes in American history because people are dissatisfied with you. You lose despite the popular vote when you mismanage the street presence of your campaign in the last month.
She has a 3 million popular vote lead because a lot of people hate her opponent. She has fewer votes than Obama whereas Trump gained two million on Romney.
|
On January 13 2017 03:43 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2017 03:37 hunts wrote:On January 13 2017 03:28 xDaunt wrote:On January 13 2017 03:26 hunts wrote:On January 13 2017 03:21 xDaunt wrote:On January 13 2017 03:13 hunts wrote:On January 13 2017 03:10 xDaunt wrote:On January 13 2017 02:55 farvacola wrote:On January 13 2017 02:48 zlefin wrote:On January 13 2017 02:46 farvacola wrote:
So the Senate laid the groundwork for a practically complete, filibuster-proof repeal of Obamacare in the House.....through voting that took place during the dead of night. Must have been a popular move, ehh?
what makes it the dead of night? I hadn't followed the daily happenings. the house sometimes works until very late. We're now in the midst of the "vote-a-rama" that takes place in the Senate every year as they attempt to play catch up. How the votes are scheduled and at what time is usually a good indicator of controversy (much of the congressional action on the CRA of '64 took place at night, for example). Accordingly, that the repeal of Obamacare, something many Republicans have claimed is wildly popular, was handled by the Senate around 1 AM suggests that all is not right with the repeal Obamacare movement. Congressional republicans are a bunch of pussies. I'm just glad that they got the vote through. Are you? What exactly do you have against poor people having access to healthcare that they can actually afford? Yeah, you may want to take time to read up on my numerous statements regarding what I think about health care before writing patently presumptive, stupid, and uninformed shit like this. I have, and you have not shown any good or valid arguments, so I'm just curious what your problem with poor people having affordable health care they can afford is. We both, as well as every politician knows if obamacare is repealed there will not be any replacement for a very long time, and if there ever is it will not be until democrats take over the senate and house, because the republicans will either fight every inch of the way to not have a viable replacement, or will make a replacement that's just another horrible privatized healthcare system in which once again poor people and those with pre existing illnesses will be given the shaft. You very clearly have no fucking clue what I think because I have been very clear for years that I support a public option. Do your homework before you launch presumptuous bullshit attacks. Sure, however you supporting the public option is irrelevant. You, me, the politicians, your grandma, and even my cat all know that there is no replacement for obamacare, and that the republicans which hold majority have no plans for a replacement and especially not for a public healthcare system. Therefore you are happy about them getting rid of a system which allows the poor to have access to healthcare that they would not otherwise have, with no plans to replace it anytime soon. That is what you support. The fact that you would like a public healthcare system is irrelevant because that will not happen until the republicans are kicked out of office, and even then might not. I'm guessing that you didn't watch Trump's press conference yesterday where he said that there will be a replacement put in immediately after Obamacare is phased out?
"Repeal and replace" (Trump's exact words) doesn't actually mean anything though. At least we know it "will most likely be on the same day or the same week, but probably, the same day, could be the same hour."
Moreover, he said the NYT did a great discussion of his plan...but as far as I know their most recent article on the subject is about how it is vague and lacking in details.
And, of course, there is absolutely no Republican Congressional willpower to do anything besides repeal right now.
|
On January 13 2017 03:43 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2017 03:37 hunts wrote:On January 13 2017 03:28 xDaunt wrote:On January 13 2017 03:26 hunts wrote:On January 13 2017 03:21 xDaunt wrote:On January 13 2017 03:13 hunts wrote:On January 13 2017 03:10 xDaunt wrote:On January 13 2017 02:55 farvacola wrote:On January 13 2017 02:48 zlefin wrote:On January 13 2017 02:46 farvacola wrote:
So the Senate laid the groundwork for a practically complete, filibuster-proof repeal of Obamacare in the House.....through voting that took place during the dead of night. Must have been a popular move, ehh?
what makes it the dead of night? I hadn't followed the daily happenings. the house sometimes works until very late. We're now in the midst of the "vote-a-rama" that takes place in the Senate every year as they attempt to play catch up. How the votes are scheduled and at what time is usually a good indicator of controversy (much of the congressional action on the CRA of '64 took place at night, for example). Accordingly, that the repeal of Obamacare, something many Republicans have claimed is wildly popular, was handled by the Senate around 1 AM suggests that all is not right with the repeal Obamacare movement. Congressional republicans are a bunch of pussies. I'm just glad that they got the vote through. Are you? What exactly do you have against poor people having access to healthcare that they can actually afford? Yeah, you may want to take time to read up on my numerous statements regarding what I think about health care before writing patently presumptive, stupid, and uninformed shit like this. I have, and you have not shown any good or valid arguments, so I'm just curious what your problem with poor people having affordable health care they can afford is. We both, as well as every politician knows if obamacare is repealed there will not be any replacement for a very long time, and if there ever is it will not be until democrats take over the senate and house, because the republicans will either fight every inch of the way to not have a viable replacement, or will make a replacement that's just another horrible privatized healthcare system in which once again poor people and those with pre existing illnesses will be given the shaft. You very clearly have no fucking clue what I think because I have been very clear for years that I support a public option. Do your homework before you launch presumptuous bullshit attacks. Sure, however you supporting the public option is irrelevant. You, me, the politicians, your grandma, and even my cat all know that there is no replacement for obamacare, and that the republicans which hold majority have no plans for a replacement and especially not for a public healthcare system. Therefore you are happy about them getting rid of a system which allows the poor to have access to healthcare that they would not otherwise have, with no plans to replace it anytime soon. That is what you support. The fact that you would like a public healthcare system is irrelevant because that will not happen until the republicans are kicked out of office, and even then might not. I'm guessing that you didn't watch Trump's press conference yesterday where he said that there will be a replacement put in immediately after Obamacare is phased out?
you know enough to know that's not true, so please don't bring up arguments you know to be bad.
imho it's better to wait until an actual replacement is ready before removing the old system.
reminds me of a useful feature some parliaments have: in order to vote to remove the old prime minister, you have to have a new one selected, so the government isn't stuck in an in-between state with no leader.
|
On January 13 2017 03:22 farvacola wrote:
Memes weren't "what won the election," but white nationalists have way better memes than centrist Democrats, that much is clear.
I mentioned how word of mouth (which in today's society is linked to social media presence, much of it spammed by memes), affect the costs of a GOTV campaign; especially a national one.
It only takes a few social media friends to blanket your walls with anti-hillary posts that reduces volunteer turnout which increases GOTV costs.
ie, her campaign team was shit at GOTV and was not able to leverage their resources appropriately.
|
On January 13 2017 03:20 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2017 03:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 13 2017 02:54 LegalLord wrote:
Yes, those utterly despicable populists abandoned all reason to victimize poor, poor Hillary Clinton, a delectably electable candidate who should have never lost because she had the only policy that made sense - the people were just too liberal or deplorable to see her truly brilliant vision. I was not arguing for poor-poor Hillary, just restating the events that transpired. She got 3 million more votes than her opponent, so it's clear what the choice was for the American people. Where she lost was in strategic voting, unable to get word-of-mouth traction because social media was inundated by memes instead of discourse--an axis she was weak on. As such, costs to get door-knockers and precinct walkers was much higher for her than normal elections, forcing her team to be more deliberate in their GOTV strat. She lost according to the rules of the game as it was played. Trump won the votes where he needed to win them, and he had a pretty solid electoral victory, so I don't see the win as illegitimate in that sense. Memes weren't what won the election though - it was a deeply rooted dissatisfaction with Hillary and everything she represents, and in the swing states that dissatisfaction just happened to be sufficient to get people to suck it up and vote for a candidate they didn't really like who claimed to virulently stand against those things.
there are many mayn things which influenced how the election was won and lost; many factors that came together, and changes in any few of them coul'dve changed the overall outcome, so attempts to put it all on one or another thing are generally inapt,
but since you want to do that: the election was won/lost because people are idiots and suck at assessing things accurately.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
